Comment: But For Wales?

(See in situ)

But For Wales?

Rand Paul sold out his father - not to mention his supposed beliefs - in a bid to gain influence or whatever in the Republican establishment. Unfortunately, the obsession with working within the Republican Party is fatally flawed. Yes, compromise is acceptable so long as both sides are getting something in exchange for surrendering something; what each side gets is more valuable to them than what they exchanged, the essence of trade. Simply abandoning your principles for personal gain, however, is not compromise, but treachery.

That is what the Rand Pauls, Jack Hunters, Jesse Bentons and other scalawag ex-Paulites fail to understand: you can "compromise" to such an extent that you eventually lose what you were fighting for in the first place. They present a false choice - create a mainstream movement or remain fringe - when the real objective should be to make the "fringe" the "mainstream." The logic is obvious: if libertarians wish to make a difference, they must remain libertarians.

At the end of "A Man For All Seasons," a movie about Sir Thomas More's defiance of King Henry VIII's regime, More, having been betrayed by his former friend in exchange for land titles in Wales, crys, "Why, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world...but for Wales?" Similarly, Rand Paul has sold his soul for political prestige in Occupied Virginia.

"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors, but today we kneel only to truth." - Kahlil Gibran